• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

TheNextEra said:
The risks are more acceptable than others because lawyers are going to the extreme and judges are following suit. It used to be that if you slipped in from of someones house it was on YOU. Now they go after the homeowner. Sorry, but the lawyers and judges have created a lucrative system in which they ALL benefit from fraud lawsuits. The prosecuting attorney benefits in the rulings, even the defense and judges benefit in court costs (not directly but in wages from the court system).
Click to expand...

I won't argue that you are wrong, but that is also brought by people who sue. Lawyers want money. It's the market at work. Juries often settle these things, citizens, and judges often face elections as well. And lord have you seen what happens to a judge that rules contrary to public opinion?

All I'm saying is that it's too simplistic to blame government.
 
Boo Radley said:
I won't argue that you are wrong, but that is also brought by people who sue. Lawyers want money. It's the market at work. Juries often settle these things, citizens, and judges often face elections as well. And lord have you seen what happens to a judge that rules contrary to public opinion?

All I'm saying is that it's too simplistic to blame government.
Click to expand...

When I blame government, I blame the people as well since the people ARE the government. They are the ones that vote these people in and accept at face value what is presented to them in the form of regulations.
 
TheNextEra said:
Again, you have made my point, we have stopped producing representatives and instead produced politicians. We should be limiting money to a campaign, because all that we are doing is creating the best "politician" money can buy. Which has produced more troubles and less freedom than what we need.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't disagree. But the courts ruled money was free speech. Freedom is chaotic. Authoritarian governments don't have these issues.
 
TheNextEra said:
When I blame government, I blame the people as well since the people ARE the government. They are the ones that vote these people in and accept at face value what is presented to them in the form of regulations.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, yes. Which has always been my argument. Often lost in many.

BTW, they don't just accept at face value, they very often push for and are the moving force behind the regulations.
 
Boo Radley said:
Ahhhh, yes. Which has always been my argument. Often lost in many.

BTW, they don't just accept at face value, they very often push for and are the moving force behind the regulations.
Click to expand...

When I say face value I have seen people like my father (a hard core Democrat) accept Obamacare because he believes the "representatives" somehow know better than him. I have also seen people like my uncle (a hard core conservative) believe at face value what his side says as well. Unfortunately I think there are lots base players on both sides that take their side at face value than there are people that actually think for themselves. That doesn't even factor in YOUR point of "key players" from both sides pushing these things. We, in a political sense as a country, are in serious distress.
 
Boo Radley said:
What you do may well effect other. Something of yours collapses, it may fall out of your yard into mine. Doesn't meet fire code, and it spread too my house. And this is nit to mention gated communities that demand much, much more (with their own added set of rules).
Click to expand...

So hold me accountable when something happens. :shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, I don't disagree. But the courts ruled money was free speech. Freedom is chaotic. Authoritarian governments don't have these issues.
Click to expand...

Yet again, courts (that benefit from such donations) ruling on such is no surprise. While a Supreme Court Justice doesn't "directly" benefit from campaign funds the people that appoint them sure do. That alone should have been cause to cancel the citizens united case.
 
TheNextEra said:
When I say face value I have seen people like my father (a hard core Democrat) accept Obamacare because he believes the "representatives" somehow know better than him. I have also seen people like my uncle (a hard core conservative) believe at face value what his side says as well. Unfortunately I think there are lots base players on both sides that take their side at face value than there are people that actually think for themselves. That doesn't even factor in YOUR point of "key players" from both sides pushing these things. We, in a political sense as a country, are in serious distress.
Click to expand...

I think that has more to do with team mentality. Us versus them. I'm often amazed how each side never sees their contradictions.

As for distress, I think it is the growth and excessive silliness of the team mentality that has us in distress. I don't think we are too far from one another in this.
 
TheNextEra said:
Right, your side wanted a FEDERAL constitutional amendment against flag burning and gay marriage. Your side constantly sides with FCC rulings on so called "morality" as well as abortion. Don't act like YOUR side doesn't use government for what THEY want.
Click to expand...

My "side"? What side is that? We live in a Constitutional Republic. I don't believe social issues should be handled at the Federal level, so there goes your strawman.

Do you know how the amendment process works btw?

Your "morality" is repugnant to me. I don't have a problem voting values state by state. You DO however and you know it.

What business does a central authority have over any of the stuff you people are talking about in this thread? Answer: Zero
 
TheNextEra said:
Yet again, courts (that benefit from such donations) ruling on such is no surprise. While a Supreme Court Justice doesn't "directly" benefit from campaign funds the people that appoint them sure do. That alone should have been cause to cancel the citizens united case.
Click to expand...

Once in, they certainly can ignore donors with no fear of being replaced, at the Supreme Court level. I'm not sure I buy they hold any real obligation.

But who isn't touched in this way? Can we really remove all money?
 
Boo Radley said:
Once in, they certainly can ignore donors with no fear of being replaced, at the Supreme Court level. I'm not sure I buy they hold any real obligation.

But who isn't touched in this way? Can we really remove all money?
Click to expand...

We can't remove money, that's for sure, but we sure can have limits. Can anyone honestly (and I say honestly) that the most money produces the best candidate? Because that is the system we are promoting right now.
 
TheNextEra said:
I guess my point is you have some sort of beef with the reality of the situation of the government being overreaching. Now can you show me how the duoploy of the Dem/Rep so called "representatives" are working to correct this? I guess the question I'm asking is do you vote Republican?
Click to expand...

No, I do not vote republican.
 
TheNextEra said:
We can't remove money, that's for sure, but we sure can have limits. Can anyone honestly (and I say honestly) that the most money produces the best candidate? Because that is the system we are promoting right now.
Click to expand...

The best candidates usually are gone early. And yes, this is a flaw in our system.
 
TheNextEra said:
We can't remove money, that's for sure, but we sure can have limits. Can anyone honestly (and I say honestly) that the most money produces the best candidate? Because that is the system we are promoting right now.
Click to expand...

The problem you guys are talking about deals with the mindset that you can use the government for personal benefits. The money is merely how you get your voice heard over other people that don't offer the government anything. Still, if what you desire gets the government power sometimes you don't need to have that much money to get whatever it is.
 
Henrin said:
The problem you guys are talking about deals with the mindset that you can use the government for personal benefits. The money is merely how you get your voice heard over other people that don't offer the government anything. Still, if what you desire gets the government power sometimes you don't need to have that much money to get whatever it is.
Click to expand...

Really? I would wager money is what got Obama re-elected. I would also wager that money is what got MOST (if not all) the presidential candidates where they were at for election. I ask, can you HONESTLY say the most money produces the BEST candidate, because if you look at all the candidates they are there because of money.
 
Boo Radley said:
You probably can't afford it or be truly held accountable.
Click to expand...

You can't define what truly holding someone accountable for an action means. If I damage the property of someone else the state should hold me accountable and if I don't they should leave me alone.
 
Henrin said:
The problem you guys are talking about deals with the mindset that you can use the government for personal benefits. The money is merely how you get your voice heard over other people that don't offer the government anything. Still, if what you desire gets the government power sometimes you don't need to have that much money to get whatever it is.
Click to expand...

It works both ways. The politician can offer support for money. Not bribes, but encourage support by suggesting how they might vote.
 
TheNextEra said:
Really? I would wager money is what got Obama re-elected. I would also wager that money is what got MOST (if not all) the presidential candidates where they were at for election. I ask, can you HONESTLY say the most money produces the BEST candidate, because if you look at all the candidates they are there because of money.
Click to expand...

As long as the parties are in charge of the choices of the candidates the people are presented with there is always going to be bad choices. The money might propel one bad candidate over the other, but they are both bad candidates. Before you even touch the money issue you must deal with the candidate issue itself. To do that you would most likely have to change the culture of the country.
 
Henrin said:
You can't define what truly holding someone accountable for an action means. If I damage the property of someone else the state should hold me accountable and if I don't they should leave me alone.
Click to expand...

It does me good putting you in jail. If you can't pay, and my loss is great, I'm just out. Better to make sure you do things properly.

Frankly, in a crowded, heavy populated world, some reasonable regulation allows for society to function well. As I've said, I haven't had any regulations effect me in any noticeable way. No hardship.
 
TheNextEra said:
Right, your side wanted a FEDERAL constitutional amendment against flag burning and gay marriage. Your side constantly sides with FCC rulings on so called "morality" as well as abortion. Don't act like YOUR side doesn't use government for what THEY want.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, a retired liberal judge agrees with them on flag burning and claims that flag burning is not protected under the first amendment. WTF?

What is interesting about the abortion issue is that even if the court ruled the unborn was a person the courts could turn around and say it's unconstitutional to ban abortion due to the thirteenth amendment. However, the courts have ruled that the thirteenth amendment only applies to slavery similar to that of blacks. Of course, that is entirely wrong.
 
rocket88 said:
My point is that the Presidency is not an entry level position. Just like you don't take a kid who just finished college and make him CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Click to expand...
I am guessing it would depend on the kid, actually. It was just like Kobe Bryant going straight to the NBA from high school...and he has done rather well for himself and his teams.

But you see, however, that was my point with the line that Dr. Carson has time.

At the same time I don't think Obama was prepared, he should have run for governor of Illinois and gotten some executive cred under his belt...being a lawyer to community organizer to a couple of legislative gigs he was ill suited, not ready for prime time...but he did it anyways... so between the two I would give the nod to Carson, he has the more American core belief system...Barrack has proven himself an empty suit and unsuited as presidential material.
 
Objective Voice said:
Yeah, like prisons and insane asylums. Of course, something tells me those weren't the established "institutions" you were going for. (Shame, shame! :naughty)
Click to expand...
First off, tell me why you don't think so...and then how about telling me which institutions you think I was going for.

:yt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom